"Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. "

Palin continues to lie that she said "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She kept the money and changed from supporting the bridge to opposing it once Congress killed it. Rank opportunism.

Is it a new pinnacle of feminism to have a "feminist" leader being such a shameless liar?

Funny, the people who supported the Bridge to Nowhere all blamed Palin for killing it. So she once supported it and changed her mind -- politicians (including Obama) take credit for stuff based on less all the time.

At $33.9 billion its gross state product is the fifth largest in the nation.

Sez Wiki.

Some minor state.

And for those who don't know, Gary Hart made an utter fool of himself in the 1988 presidential season when he got caught with cheating on his wife and humiliated her ala John Edwards. Talk about laughable. Pitiable is more like it.

Keep trashing her with the smears and misleading half facts, Alpha Liberal. I'm sure you're driving even more undecideds to McCain-Palin with your hysterical posts.

You leftists have cried "wolf" so many times already, if you ever DID have some real "dirt" on Governor Palin, by now, 3/4 of the country will have tuned it out and never pay attention, since the first 100 or so smears were false and haven't done the trick.

Keep trashing her with the smears and misleading half facts, Alpha Liberal. I'm sure you're driving even more undecideds to McCain-Palin with your hysterical posts.

You leftists have cried "wolf" so many times already, if you ever DID have some real "dirt" on Governor Palin, by now, 3/4 of the country will have tuned it out and never pay attention, since the first 100 or so smears were false and haven't done the trick.

Alpha - you haven't mentioned the chief reason that Palin is totally unqualified:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Gary Hart offers the I coulda been a contendah viewpoint, the crucial insight sorely needed to decide close elections. His conclusion? Palin is evil.Whodathunkit?

"Gary Hart’s political career began with the crucial insight that the rules of the game with regard to getting delegates to the Democratic convention had fundamentally changed, thanks to the debacle of the 1968 Chicago convention. His political career ended because he failed to realize that the rules of the game with regard to the private lives of politicians had also fundamentally changed, thanks to the debacle of Watergate."[source]

You just don't understand the formula, Sy. See, Obama is about Change, and Obama consistently supported building the bridge. So people who want Change don't change their mind about building the bridge.

Palin initially supported building the bridge, but then changed her mind and opposed it. This is inconsistent with Obama's position, and thus directly hostile to Change.

Sarah Palin: “I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,” she said in a speech today. “If our state wanted a bridge, we were gonna built it ourselves.”

Today’s Wall Street Journal, that bastion of liberal, pro-terrorist, anti-American ideology, reaches the only conclusion possible on the facts available:

“Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government ‘thanks but no thanks’ to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state….,” the Journal states.

The Journal also makes clear that Palin only abandoned the project AFTER Congress had killed federal funding for it, and that “she did not return the federal money.

She just allocated it elsewhere.” As late as last September, Palin was complaining that criticism of the project had been unfair, claiming that “much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here.”

In other words, it was never “thanks, but no thanks.” It was “thank you very much, and now give me some more.”

I always thought Kerry was hard done by with that quote. I understood exactly what he meant, although I understand why the Bush campaign used it and I understand why it worked. Still. At any rate, I don't think that the bridge story will get that much traction against Palin; the bottom line is that while the version she tells on the stump simplifies a more complex saga, it's basically accurate. This is the speech all over again. The media's assault on her created the ratings for her speech, because everyone wanted to know what she would say. Similarly, because she hasn't given many interviews since the speach, her interview with Gibson will be watched by everyone. He'll ask her about "troopergate" and the alleged mistakes in her version of the "bridge to nowhere," and in front of a massive TV audience, she'll kill those claims dead in a pithy quote or two that will rerun endlessly on youtube. Airwave superiority tactics.

This is the bill to which the "bridge to nowhere" was attached...and by the way, McCain skipped the vote:

Coburn Amendment #1311 – An amendment requiring that existing border security and immigration laws be enforced and approved by Congress before the amnesty in this bill can be granted.

The federal government has an obligation to secure the U.S. borders and enforce U.S. laws. The American people expect that their laws will be upheld. Yet, the U.S. borders are not secure and illegal immigrants are not being deported.

The American people have history since the 1986 amnesty of being over-promised and under-sold. The federal government has failed and has rightfully lost the trust of the public. How can the public trust that this time anything will be different?

The Coburn amendment is the first step to help restore some of the trust Congress has lost. It says that before the Kennedy-Bush bill can go forward, the president must demonstrate to Congress that current laws are being enforced.

This amendment is common sense. If the Agencies can demonstrate that U.S. borders are secure and immigration laws are enforced, then it will help restore public trust.

ALSO:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), also said that she had been an early supporter of the earmark before turning against it.

Palin continues to lie that she said "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She kept the money and changed from supporting the bridge to opposing it once Congress killed it. Rank opportunism.

I see this posted all the time. I keep wondering why we see it over and over when the facts are undisputed. I think I now understand. the people who say this either don't know, or are willfully blind to the difference between an "earmark" and an ordinary highway grant. Everyone knows that the highway grant to Alaska was the same with or without the earmark for the BTN. The congressional vote not to "earmark" did not mean Alaska could not use the funds for the BTN, only that Congress was not making the expenditure a requirement. Congress never did (and could not) kill the project. Since the Governor had the power to cancel projects, and did, it can't be a "lie" for her to say she canceled it. Nor could she, as governor be for, or against, a Federal "earmark." Those are entirely a creature of Congress' own machinations. I'm mystified as to why people think this is a winning argument.

Congress didn't kill its funding of Alaskan infrastructure; it killed the earmark — the requirement that the money be spent on that bridge. Governor Palin spent the money on infrastructure, but killed that project.

"National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion."

See, also "shell game."

And...

'"The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line."'

She kept the money and had work done o the bridge:

"A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here.""

mcallen3 answered this “she did not return the federal money." The problem was the earmark, and not the highway money, raised from gasoline taxes and supposed to be spent, as she presumably did, for highway projects. This is money taken from the states and then returned supposedly for highway projects.

Me: "If the majority of voters don't think it is cute to have a Senator openly screwing around on his wife as president, they can turn him out to be a washed up bitter old man". (and, yes, I did vote to turn him out the next time he ran).

Funny, I don't remember Gary Hart saying how "cute" it was that Democrats selected as their VP a bridge playing Queens housewife who "abandoned" her three kids not even in their teens to become a prosecutor in 1974.

Didn't remember Hart commenting it would be "cute" to have a female President that coached as a mom or did any outdoor sports, either...

===============Then you have Steven Cohen rising to give this gem on the Senate floor.

If you want change, you want the Democratic Party,” said Cohen. “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister just prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

Not sure what his bottom line is.

1. Is he comparing Obama to Christ?

2. Or, as a Jew is he saying community organizers are heretics that Jews condemn and drag to governors for execution, and good as governors are and as reluctant to go along...there is just so much a governor can do?

3. And if Obama is Christlike, (pending the new Sanhedrin's judgment, of course)...what does that imply to Cohen about other community organizers like Charlie Manson, Pol Pot? And Mrs Birdsong down the street who is passing around a petition to allow boys on the girl's HS field hockey team?

If Sarah Palin is against earmarks, why did Alaska get so many earmarks when she was Governor?

Um, earmarks are determined by Congress, little brain. The Governor of a state has no power over what earmarks a state does or doesn't get. Alaska's Senators (and lone Rep) are notorious porkmeisters; small-government Republicans have been haranguing them for years.

AlphaLiberal, I thought you were deleting your Althouse bookmark and crawling up Andrew Sullivan's well-worn butt-hole? Or was that just another one of your LIES? Hang on a minute, I'm going to Google for some links then cut and paste 458 snippets of articles here on how you LIE.

I'M DELETING MY ALTHOUSE BOOKMARK AND INSTEAD BOOKMARKING ANDREW SULLIVAN! Of course, I'll still come here just as much and post just as much flotsam that no one will read BUT STILL!! It's SYMBOLIC! ALTHOUSE, YOU'VE BEEN DE-BOOKMARKED! TAKE THAT!

Um, yeah I still have to come here to do my trolling and spamming since Sullivan (natch) doesn't have a comments section on his blog. BUT THE SYMBOLISM!!1

Um, earmarks are determined by Congress, little brain. The Governor of a state has no power over what earmarks a state does or doesn't get.

Well then, here's your Sarah heaping praise on her congressional delegation and promising to not get in the way of their progress securing federal funds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ

Sorry.

While her lying doesn't make her any worse than other pols, let's not act like she's some maverick reformer. She's a pork queen just like everyone else. And she's out on the trail lying to Americans everyday...real nice.

And John McCain picking her undermines his entire message, so the whole thing is a sham. Good luck!

Alpha, Obama was out there mis-characterizing McCain's "100 years of war" remark, over and over again. I'd call that repeatedly saying something he knew not to be true. But, I think Palin's misleading statements are worse because she's misrepresenting herself.

I saw her, again, today lying "Thanks but no thanks!" and it's really disgusting. Saying "thanks but no thanks" implies that you rejected the money...but as well know, she kept it.

It'll be interesting to see if Gibson calls her out on it tomorrow, and then how, if at all, her script writers revise her stump speech.

Alpha, Obama was out there mis-characterizing McCain's "100 years of war" remark, over and over again. I'd call that repeatedly saying something he knew not to be true. But, I think Palin's misleading statements are worse because she's misrepresenting herself.

Exactly why do you think making misleading statements about yourself is worse than making misleading statements about someone else?

On 6 September Sullivan quoted David Frum, "George W. Bush had very slight executive experience before becoming president. His views were not well known. He won the nomination exactly in the same way that Palin has won the hearts of so many conservatives."

Bush was Governor of Texas for 6 years, promoted faith-based initiatives, signed into law a concealed-carry bill, and passed the largest tax cut in Texas history.

Pallin is governor of Alaska but "only" has 19 months of executive experience at the state level. Neither Bush nor Palin have hidden their views on any of the hot button issues.

Exactly what type of executive experience are these guys looking for? Sullivan laments, "John McCain has demonstrated with this insane decision that he is unfit to be president of the United States. This was an act of near-criminal negligence." Near-criminal negligence? Good grief, I used to think Sullivan was somewhat intelligent.

Spending the money on more worthwhile projects as opposed to the "Bridge to Nowhere" is better than building the bridge. I suspect left and right can agree on that.

If there is any substance to those on the left shouting LIAR LIAR beyond partisan necessity it must rest on the idea that they believe the honorable thing would have been for Gov. Palin to give the money back to congress.

I just don't agree with that. Unless Sarah Palin could cut all the tax payers a refund check ceding the money back to the Congress doesn't seem like the better move. They were the folks who voted twice to spend it on such a craptacular project in the first place.

Earmark reform is about stopping corruption and wasting taxpayer's money. Giving the money back to congress would not further either of these goals.

Also, alpha - you yelling Palin is a liar doesn't make Wright, Hart or any of the other douchebags saying this kind ofthing less ridiculusly elitist and sexist.

The "letters to the editor" response to the column in the paper last week about "Sarah Palin makes me think I could be Vice President" came out today so I was grousing most of the day about the very thing Gary Hart is spouting off.

The column started out how Palin's candidacy made the little people feel like they could succeed... only you had to read half-way through before hearing the "little people" sneer between the lines.

A lot of the responses were about experience and how Obama made *them* feel like they could be president because they'd organized a community rummage sale... but for me that missed the point.

The point was what the columnist listed sarcastically as "unnecessary"... a degree from Harvard or Yale... in law or economics...

It's not CUTE to have a moose-hunting hockey mom run the country. It's profound to have someone exemplify the Virtue of this country where *anyone* can grow up to be president.

This is nearly as basic as justice and liberty for all when it comes to our national psyche.

It's not an advanced degree from an Ivy League school in the proper field of law or economics and being ruled by our betters... none of that says squat about tenacity or wisdom or humility in the face of service and hard choices.

Obama has been playing on his humble origins for a reason. But it seems that what impresses his supporters is the lofty social sphere he inhabits.

Another thing with this clip is that Hart argues and Wright seems to agree that it is somehow nefarious Republicans who show that Government is so lame anyone can run it. This seems like they are putting the cart before the horse. They spend their time calling Reagan, Bush, Palin etc. morons and idiots and soccer moms and B-movie actors. If anyone is trying to convincing the American public that idiots can run the government it is liberals. It isn't some conspiracy of the right, Mr. Hart! You are the one doing this. YOU! You are the folks running down people's conception of politicians. Right in this short clip you spend time telling the public that President Reagan was only a B-Actor and then you don't like it when people say - "Well, if Reagan is an idiot I'd like a whole government of morons, please." How can Hart in the same breath complain that people don't respect the offices of government when you so obviously won't if a Republican holds that position.

That's an interesting point, AGrad. Most people think Reagan was a great President; attacking him as inexperienced and less than intelligent just convinces people that inexperienced and not-too-bright politicians can be great Presidents.

Michael, if you won't believe me, believe the NYT's admission against interest: "Palin ordered state transportation officials to abandon the 'bridge to nowhere' project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending. ... 'Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport,' Ms. Palin, ... said in a news release, 'but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.' She directed the State Transportation Department to find the most 'fiscally responsible' alternative for access to the airport."

AlphaLiberal said... "Beth, I doubt Biden and Obama 'voted for the bridge.' I think they voted for a massive appropriations bill which had the bridge buried inside of it."

You think that makes a difference? Unbelievable! You people really are unbelievable! Every member of Congress carries responsibility for every bill they vote for. No ifs, no buts, no maybe - they are responsible for every chapter, section, sentence, dot and commar in every bill they vote for. Period. And if they cannot handle that responsibility - as one of them admitted in Michael Moore's "Farenheit" documentary - that member should resign.

My problem with Bloggingheads is, like this one, too many of them seem to have a liberal arguing with a leftist.

The first podcast to offer discussion of Sarah Palin consisted of two people (IIRC, Joshua Cohen and Glenn Loury) arguing over exactly what kind of horrible person she was. That kind of discussion is not, to my mind, particularly elucidating.

Let me say in defense of Bloggingheads - I understand the criticism that they generally have the left arguing with the lefter (or at least the center arguing with the left), but not always. Dan Drezner, Eli Lake, Jonah Goldberg and Gene Volokh have been on, and that's just the ones that spring immediately to mind. I guess my point is that we shouldn't assume that the absence of righties is a choice by BHTV rather than either an absence of availability, compatability or interest from righty bloggers. (By compatability, I have Malkin in mind, but I gues that in light of their embrace of the Hamsher child that's a moot point.

Bob Wright strikes me as a fair-minded guy, and I think he's interested in seeing BHTV feature interesting and provocative diavlogs that will get people watching and talking. I'd like to see more conservatives on there too, but maybe the problem is that conservatives who would be a good fit haven't shown interest.

You're defense of Bob Wright is somewhat excessive. Bob is only interested in "reasonable" conservatives as BHTV guests. That is to say those acceptable to the liberal-left NYT/WaPo Audience. It's unthinkable he could have a real discussion with say, Ingraham, Malkin, Coulter, Sailor, Levin, Buchanan, Taki, Fleming, etc. That is to say a nationalist or a traditional/ social conservative.

Good lord,the BHTV audience wants moderate Micky Kaus banned because he occasionally talks about illegal immigration. Wright himself, practically broke down in tears of rage,when Micky refused to disown Coulter. You seriously misread how Open minded Bob is to voices on the right.

Just a point: "All negative on Palin all the time" has gone from actively harmful to Obama to simply more noise.

Alpha, your side needed to find something real and hit it hard early. It didn't, it pushed things that get laughed about now, and even if your team could find something useful to your cause, it will be fruit from a tainted tree, electorate-wise.

If this election continues to be about Obama v. Palin, the person who wins is McCain. Suggest you re-think.

If McCain loses to Obama, will his pick of Palin become know historically as McCain's folly after Seward's folly? And if he wins the presidency, and dies in office, will the joke (Sarah Palin) be on us (U.S.)?

Trumpit - McCain's going to win. And if the worst should happen, and he dies in or resigns from office, we get Sarah ahead of schedule. That doesn't frighten me, although it's sad to see people already supposing tragedy will strike.

We have to elect our betters to office because then we can pretend that they aren't just people like us. that they're somehow adequate to the task of making the right decision instead of making a decision among many choices, none of which are indisputably good, all of which may actually be bad.

And a person... a *human*... is going to have that responsibility.

Someone please... save us from ourselves. It's bad enough that the masses get to vote... but if we can't even be trusted to vote for someone so far above us in understanding and ability? Well? What is there to do?

So vote your conscience, guts and heartAlthough it's just a mysteryAnd partake in the sacramental:Tuesday we make history.Draw the curtain, pull the leverPick a winner in the boothBut a winner's not a saviourAnd that's the awful truth.--Loudon Wainwright, "Leap of Faith"

Reading the comments thread, I wonder how many people there are whose opinion hasn't been firmly fixed in place? Not many, it seems.

Palin? She's a poltician--less objectionable than most, it seems, but still a politician. Which means, at least, opportunistic spinning.

But for all the frenetic digging going on in Wasilla, I doubt anyone will find the equivalent of a Wright, Rezko, or Ayers (or even Pfleger or Klonsky) in her background. No failed $150M education programs that funneled large sums to unreconstructed 60s radicals. No failed slum rehabilitation projects that deteriorated again almost as quickly as they were finished (but enriched political allies in the process).